Sunday, October 18, 2015

HARLEY THE CHIHUAHUA IS AMERICA'S TOP DOG - RESCUED FROM A PUPPY MILL HE SPENT THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF HIS LIFE AS A BREEDING DOG

He may be little, have only one eye, and walks with a limp, but pint-sized Harley the Chihuahua is America’s top dog. Last month he won the American Hero Dog award, and since then Harley’s owners, Dan and Rudi Taylor, have been inundated with calls from around the globe.

“I’ve lost track of how many interviews we’ve given,” said Rudi. “And at last check we had 30,000 Harley-related hero dog press links. It’s probably over 40,000 by now.”

Each year the American Humane Association’s Hero Dog Awards attract a huge audience of dog lovers from around the country and the world. Eight finalists are chosen in eight categories. Harley won in the Emerging Hero Dogs category for his campaign, “Harley to the Rescue,” which has raised funds and provided medical care for more than 500 dogs from puppy mills over the last two years.

Harley is a rescue dog, having spent the first 10 years of his life as a breeding dog at a puppy mill. Like thousands of other puppy-mill dogs, he lived in conditions that left him crippled and broken. Thanks to National Mill Dog Rescue, Harley was adopted by the Taylor family and has become an active spokes dog against puppy mills.

On Sept. 19, at a celebrity-studded event in Beverly Hills, Harley won the American Humane Association Hero Dog Award, making him the official American Hero Dog of 2015.

“Whenever I nominated Harley for a contest, it’s always with the idea that we are going to be spreading awareness about puppy mills,” said Taylor. “The Hero Dog Award is really the biggest award available to dogs, but what I really care about is that this is creating awareness about puppy mills.”

Because of the Hero Dog Award, Harley, “the little dog with the big dream,” is having his story told around the globe, which is good for his cause.

“This is an issue that’s going to take so much awareness to make a difference,” said Taylor.

The Taylors are utilizing Harley’s Hero Dog status to gain even more publicity for Harley’s message. Harley has even written a letter to President Obama asking for a meeting to discuss “possible solutions to the cruel commercial dog-breeding industry.” You can listen to the entire letter on YouTube on the Harley Taylor channel.

Harley, along with Rudi and Dan, will join the American Humane Association in Washington D.C. on Oct. 21 to ask Congress to shut down puppy mills.

According to Rudi there are estimated to be 10,000 puppy mills currently operating in the United States, and the she knows this isn’t a simple request. She says there are many issues surrounding the shutting down of puppy mills and, while D.C. may be a hard sell at this time, she hopes to gain ground on the local level in 2016.

Municipalities across the United States have banned the retail sale of dogs and cats, including the City of San Diego. With the majority of dogs at retail shops coming from puppy mills, the Taylors know this is a small step toward slowing puppy-mill production.

“I’m very hopeful that we’re going to be talking to Governor Hickenlooper in January when he’s back in session,” said Taylor. “I’m really hoping we can make Colorado the first state to ban the retail sale of dogs and cats.”

“If this were to happen, it would educate a lot more people about puppy mills,” she added.

Colorado’s State Pet is the Shelter Dog, so Taylor thinks it would make sense for Colorado to set an example for other states by banning the retail sale of dogs and cats.

"What I really want people to know is that if puppy mills no longer existed there would by 75 percent less dogs in shelters and rescues," said Taylor. "From a dog-lover's point of view, that's absolutely incredible. Also, it would save tax dollars."

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.